California electoral reform fails its first test

The verdict is now in for the two political reforms pushed by former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and passed by voters. Both the top-two primary and independent redistricting commission have failed to live up to their billing.

Both of these reforms were touted as ones that would help elect more moderates, decrease legislative polarization and increase competition and voter choice. Did they accomplish that? Let’s look at the impacts, first from the 30,000-foot level.

* More moderate Legislature? Instead, we ended up with a Legislature in which the Democratic Party has a two-thirds majority. The Legislature is now more one-sided than ever before. No political party in California has had a two-thirds majority in a chamber since 1976, and Democrats now have lost any incentives for compromise.

* Choice for voters? Most voters had less choice on the November ballot than they have seen in years. In the November 2010 elections for state Assembly, Senate and U.S. Congress (a total of 153 races), there were 77 independent and minor party candidates on the ballot. In the November 2012 elections, there were eight – a huge decline.

In addition, 28 races had two candidates from the same political party. So in those races voters never even heard from one of the two major parties.

Top-two primary advocates cite this handful of same-party races as evidence of the merits of their reform, because in these solidly partisan districts they produced more competition between opponents from the same political party.

But does anyone really believe there is much difference between liberal Democrats Howard Berman and Brad Sherman, or between liberal Democrats Pete Stark or Eric Swalwell, who faced off against each other? These are still heavily Democratic districts and the final result amounted to electing the same brand of Democrat. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

* Competition? Most races were still vastly noncompetitive. In the Assembly, 80 percent of races were won by comfortable margins of at least 10 percentage points, 60 percent by landslides (defined as greater than 20 points). In the Senate, 86 percent were won by comfortable 10-point margins, and in U.S. House races, 74 percent were won by comfortable margins and 57 percent by landslides. The average margin of victory for incumbents was no different than it has been for the past 10 years.

The new redistricting plans did create a few more competitive races. In those races between candidates of opposing parties, 8 percent (10 races) had a margin of victory of fewer than five points, which is more than double the 3.1 percent average of the previous 10 years. Also, 10 incumbents lost, and seven of them had their districts significantly redrawn. But those sorts of competitive effects usually are heightened in the first race with the new lines, and become less pronounced in subsequent elections as the new incumbent settles into the district.

Top-two proponents point to the handful of same-party races as evidence of more competition, but of these 28 races only five in the Assembly were close (defined as a victory margin of five points or fewer), and none in the Senate or U.S. House races. Three more same-party assembly races and two in the U.S. House (and none in the Senate) were won by fewer than 10-point margins.

So out of 153 races, that’s a mere 3.3 percent to 6.5 percent of races that plausibly can be called “more competitive” as a result of the top-two primary.

* Better representation? Barack Obama won 59.3 percent of the vote in California, an indicator of the strength of the statewide Democratic vote. Yet the Democrats won nearly 68 percent of the seats in both the state Assembly and Senate, and 72 percent of U.S. House seats.

Zooming down from 30,000 feet to the ground level, let’s look at individual races, particularly that in Congressional District 31. That’s a liberal-leaning district that includes Ontario and San Bernardino, with Latinos a near-majority (49 percent) and whites less than 30 percent of the population. Yet voters in District 31 were offered the choice of two white Republicans on the November ballot. Why? Because the Democrats ran four candidates last June and split the liberal vote, resulting in none of the Democrats making the November runoff. That kind of vote-splitting happened in about two dozen races last June.

The top-two primary has turned many races into a crapshoot where the results are completely dependent on how many candidates run. It’s conceivable that in a future election for governor so many candidates will run that the final election in November will have only two Democrats or two Republicans on the ballot because the votes split in unpredictable ways.

Top-two proponents have responded, “Well, it’s only been one election, the real impacts haven’t kicked in yet.” But a recent study by FairVote of the use of the top-two primary in Washington state shows that after three election cycles the alleged benefits have still not “kicked in.” It has not resulted in more competition, more choice, more moderates getting elected or a less partisan Legislature.

On balance, these reforms have done little to improve California politics, and the top-two primary actually has made things worse. They did not increase political choice and competition overall, and produced a state Legislature that is more partisan than ever. The Golden State needs to consider more promising reforms such as proportional representation, which is really the best method to increase competition and choice for voters across the political spectrum, including moderates.

Steven Hill is the author of “10 Steps to Repair American Democracy: 2012 Election Edition,” www.10Steps.net

A provocative, remedy-based perspective on the joint complexities of economic stability and ever expanding technology.–Kirkus Reviews

“Hill hits Silicon Valley darlings like Uber and Airbnb alongside the former online black market Silk Road, right-to-work laws, and factory robots all under the umbrella of “naked capitalism.” He explains how the rise of the “1099 workforce” is not limited to Silicon Valley; more and more traditional jobs in fields like manufacturing are turning to contractors to perform the same tasks full-time employees used to do. In addition to costing workers in benefits and safety nets, misclassifying workers as contractors costs federal and state governments billions of dollars annually in lost tax revenue.” ―Washington Monthly

“For anyone driven crazy by the faux warm and fuzzy PR of the so-called sharing economy Steven Hill’s Raw Deal: How the “Uber Economy” and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers should be required reading… Hill is an extremely well-informed skeptic who presents a satisfyingly blistering critique of high tech’s disingenuous equating of sharing with profiteering…Hill includes two chapters listing potential solutions for the crises facing U.S. workers…Hill stresses the need for movement organizing to create a safety net strong enough to save the millions of workers currently being shafted in venture capital’s brave new world.” ―Counterpunch

“A growing underclass scrambling to make ends meet at the whim of increasingly picky and erratic employers, that number could balloon to 65 million within 10 years, or about half of the domestic workforce, warns Steven Hill in his troubling new book, Raw Deal. This brand of worker abuse cuts across industries and company size. Hill calls out Uber, AirBnb, Merck, Nissan, and dozens of others. Hill does a nice job of putting it in starker, easier-to-understand ways.” ―Washington Independent Review of Books

“Steven Hill’s book Raw Deal is a red-faced, steam-out-the-ears indictment of sharing apps. Yet Hill offers a pragmatic, almost post-ideological solution: “individual security accounts” for workers. Companies that use independent contractors, or offer scant benefits for employees, would have to add on a certain percentage of their pay as a contribution to those accounts, which would cover health care, unemployment insurance, and more. There’d be a mechanism ― and a requirement ― for companies to contribute to the long-term well-being even of workers who aren’t on their traditional payrolls.” ―Boston Globe

“Raw Deal is a book for its time. Steven Hill perfectly captures the anxiety of the American worker in today’s increasingly digital economy. Hill presents some compelling ideas, the most important being something he calls the Economic Singularity. In this unfortunate tipping point, the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few results in economic implosion because the 99 percent can’t afford to buy anything the 1 percent has to sell. The United States is turning into a nation of 1099 workers who eke out a living driving cars, renting rooms and running errands for people who apparently have better things to do with their time. Throw in self-thinking computers and obedient robots, and there won’t be any work left for plain old Homo sapiens…Hill proposes that we offer 1099 workers a new safety net consisting of tax deductions, individual security accounts and multiemployer health care plans. All good ideas.” ― San Francisco Chronicle

This book is a must read for those concerned about how technology is disrupting the way we work and eroding the social safety net, and how policy makers should respond to ensure that the growing number of workers in the “gig” economy earn adequate benefits.—Laura D’Andrea Tyson, UC-Berkeley and former Chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers

“Steven Hill’s groundbreaking book on the part-time, unstable ‘Uber Economy’ shows how a new sub-economy becomes a work of law-flouting regress undermining full-time work. Remote corporate algorithms run riot!”— Ralph Nader, consumer advocate

For many years, Steven Hill’s analysis, commentary and activism have helped shape our understanding of the U.S. political economy. His latest book, Raw Deal is A riveting expose that shows with alarming lucidity what Americans stand to lose if we don’t figure out how to rein in the technological giants that are threatening the American Dream.–Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation

In Raw Deal, Steven Hill documents in frightening detail the ways in which new forms of work promise to plunge US workers and their families into further economic hardship, risk-assumption, and instability. Fortunately, Hill does not simply anticipate catastrophe; he closes the book with an informed call for institutional reforms that would lessen the negative consequences of these potentially dangerous forms of work. Anyone concerned with US working conditions – whether American workers, worker advocates, labor market scholars, or policy-makers – must read this book .— Janet C. Gornick, Professor of Political Science and Sociology, Graduate Center, City University of New York, Director, LIS: Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg

Praise for Expand Social Security Now

“Read this book before you vote. Few issues are more important to your personal economic future. Steven Hill shows what’s at stake, and he offers solutions that Americans of all stripes can agree on.”—Robert B. Reich, author of “Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few”

“Steven Hill has written a barn burner of a book. Or perhaps I should say ‘myth buster,’ because he systematically demolishes the false justifications for slashing Social Security. In place of misplaced animus and misleading arguments, he offers a strong case for dramatically expanding America’s most successful domestic program in an age of rising inequality and widespread financial insecurity.”—Jacob S. Hacker, coauthor of “American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget What Made America Prosper”, Professor, Yale University

“Steven Hill has written a vigorous defense of Social Security, the country’s most important social program. While most political debate in recent years has focused on ways to cut Social Security or privatize it, Hill goes in the opposite direction and argues for a robust expansion. Hill proposes a Social Security program that would be adequate by itself to support a middle-class retirement.”—Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and author of “Getting Back to Full Employment: A Better Bargain for Working People”

“Steven Hill has produced a dynamite handbook for angry Americans who seek to take back democracy. The true contest is not Republicans versus Democrats. It is the American people versus Washington. And this is the sleeper issue the people can win. The governing elites in both parties are trying to eviscerate Social Security—arguably the most successful and most popular program created by the federal government. Hill explains why the political insiders and their Wall Street patrons are wrong about Social Security. He shows us how to mobilize to defeat the power elites and expand Social Security rather than destroy it.”—William Greider, author of “Come Home, America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) of Our Country”

Praise for Europe’s Promise

Financial Times: “Steven Hill is a lucid and engaging writer. He makes you sit up and think.”

The Economist: “In a new book, Steven Hill extols the European social contract for better government services. Life in Europe is more secure, he argues, and therefore more agreeable.”

Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker: “Like a reverse Alexis de Tocqueville, Steven Hill dauntlessly explores a society largely unknown to his compatriots back home.”

Andrew Moravcsik, Foreign Affairs: “Europe’s Promise is a timely and provocative book . . . the “social capitalist” policies of European countries represent best practices in handling most of the challenges modern democracies face today.”